Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Akbar Khan and another1990 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner, Ghulam Mustafa, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 7-6-1987. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was legally justified in altering the respondent's conviction from Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which resulted in a reduction of the respondent's sentence from life imprisonment to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a reduction in the imposed fine. Upon reviewing the judgment and the reasoning provided by the High Court, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court had provided cogent reasons for its decision and had exercised its judicial discretion in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition. The case affirms the principle that an appellate court may exercise its discretion to alter a conviction and sentence when supported by valid legal reasoning.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's exercise of judicial discretion in altering a conviction and sentence?
- Is the reduction of a sentence from life imprisonment to seven years under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, legally permissible when supported by cogent reasons?
- Ghulam Mustafa And Another vs Mst. Muhammadi Begum And Another1990 CLC 246 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an appellate order directing the petitioner's eviction from a shop. The core legal question is whether a tenant, by purchasing a fractional share of the rented property during the pendency of ejectment proceedings, can extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship and oust the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. The Court held that the purchase of a share does not terminate the existing tenancy or divest the Rent Controller of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a tenant cannot challenge the landlord's title or the established relationship of landlord and tenant by acquiring a partial interest in the property during ongoing litigation. The key principle laid down is that the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction is limited to regulating the landlord-tenant relationship under the relevant rent laws; issues regarding co-ownership and partition must be resolved by a court of general civil jurisdiction. Consequently, the tenant remains liable for eviction under the rent laws, with the liberty to pursue a separate suit for partition in a civil court to assert rights arising from the purchased share.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of a share in a property by a tenant during the pendency of ejectment proceedings extinguish the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Can a tenant resist eviction proceedings by claiming co-ownership status acquired after the initiation of the ejectment petition?
- Does the Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon title disputes or partition claims between a landlord and a tenant?
- Ghulam Murtaza vs Muhammad Arif alias Bahari and others1990 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of respondent Muhammad Arif under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Hussain, but reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life due to the non-availability of an immediate motive on record. The core legal question concerns whether the absence of an immediate motive constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance to justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question, noting that leave had already been granted in a similar matter involving an identical question of an unknown or concealed motive. The Court held that the petition warranted a detailed consideration alongside the connected matter and directed that the respondent remain in custody during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of an immediate motive for an offense can serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
- Does the non-availability of an immediate motive on record justify interference with the quantum of sentence in a murder conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Ghulam Murtaza Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 803 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza Rajpur and another vs Secretary, Pakistan Medical1990 PLC (C.S.) 661 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza Qureshi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 323 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail by an accused charged with murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail when he raises a plausible plea of alibi supported by official documentation and sworn testimony, despite his name appearing in the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, finding that the distance between the crime scene and the location of the applicant at the time of the incident made his presence at the scene highly improbable. The Court emphasized that a plea of alibi supported by credible evidence cannot be dismissed merely because the accused is named in the FIR. The key principle laid down is that the provisions for anticipatory bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are intended to protect innocent individuals from harassment and disgrace caused by motivated or trumped-up charges, necessitating a judicial assessment of all evidence rather than relying solely on the FIR.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi supported by official testimony justify the grant of pre-arrest bail despite the accused being named in the FIR?
- What is the primary objective of granting anticipatory bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the mere mention of an accused's name in an FIR preclude the court from considering a plea of alibi for the purpose of bail?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Tamkeen alias Bhukka and 3 others1990 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The complainant Ghulam Muhammad sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 1-6-1987, which acquitted one convict, Jamil, and altered the conviction of the other, Tamkeen, from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question involved the assessment of ocular testimony, the plea of private defence, and whether the High Court was justified in accepting the accused's plea while rejecting the prosecution's eyewitness accounts. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions reached by the High Court were plausible based on the evidence on record, and the mere possibility of another view did not constitute a sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that plausible factual findings by the High Court regarding self-defence and rejection of ocular testimony warrant no interference under appellate jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in accepting the plea of private defence in the absence of injuries on the person of the accused?
- Does the mere possibility of another view on the evidence constitute a sufficient ground for granting leave to appeal against an acquittal or alteration of conviction?
- Whether the rejection of ocular testimony warrants the acceptance of the accused's version when corroborated by defence witnesses?
- Ghulam Muhammad Chaudhri vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 209 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and others vs The State1990 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from judgments of the trial court and the High Court convicting multiple accused persons for murder, attempted murder, house trespass, and rioting under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether there had been an over-implication or inclusion of a larger number of persons than those who actually participated in the crime. The Supreme Court evaluated the reliability of the ocular testimony, the motive, and the specific roles attributed to each appellant. The court held that the testimony of certain key witnesses was unreliable and that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive or the active participation of all accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to most of the appellants and acquitted them, while upholding the conviction of the main appellant whose role was corroborated by an injured natural witness. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's motive fails and ocular evidence contains serious infirmities regarding the identity and participation of numerous accused, the court will sift the grain from the chaff, exclude doubtful testimony, and grant the benefit of the doubt to those whose participation is not safely established.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an eye-witness who escaped unhurt during an attack can be safely relied upon?
- Can the conviction of multiple accused persons be sustained when the prosecution motive is not established and participation of the accused is doubtful?
- Whether the benefit of the doubt can be extended to certain co-accused while upholding the conviction of the principal offender based on the testimony of an injured witness?
- Ghulam Muhammad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1364 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and 8 others vs Sijawal Hussain and 7 others1990 MLD 2412 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and 6 others vs Muhammad Bakhkh and 4 others1990 SCMR 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the inheritance of land owned by the late Noor Khan, who died issueless. The core legal question concerned the validity and effect of a will executed by the deceased in 1927, specifically regarding the devolution of property upon the death of the first legatee, Mst. Badshahan, in 1957. The appellants contended that the property should devolve upon the heirs of the last male-holder under Shariat law, pursuant to the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1948 and the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962. The Supreme Court held that the testator was only competent to bequeath one-third of his property via will. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, modifying the decree to grant the respondent one-third of the property under the will, while directing that the remaining two-thirds devolve upon the heirs of the last male-holder in accordance with Shariat law. The judgment affirms the principle that testamentary disposition is limited to one-third of the estate, with the remainder subject to Islamic inheritance laws.
Questions settled- Is a testator competent to bequeath more than one-third of their property under Shariat law?
- How does the death of a limited estate-holder affect the devolution of property under the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1948?
- Does the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 limit the testamentary power of a last male-holder?
- Ghulam Khan vs The District Judge, Gujrat and 2 others1990 SCMR 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an order by the District Judge, Gujrat, regarding the execution of a compromise decree for maintenance. The petitioner, a father, challenged his obligation to maintain his daughter, arguing that his liability ceased because she refused to marry. The daughter had refused marriage to care for her ailing mother. The core legal question was whether a father's obligation to maintain his daughter terminates upon her refusal to marry, particularly when that refusal is based on the care of an ailing parent. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention lacked force. The Court reasoned that the daughter's refusal to marry was temporary and based on a genuine, temporary disability (caring for her mother), and that the father's liability would only be exonerated upon her actual marriage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the maintenance obligation persists until the daughter marries, and a temporary refusal does not extinguish the father's legal duty.
Questions settled- Does a father's obligation to maintain his daughter cease if she refuses to marry?
- Is a daughter's refusal to marry due to the care of an ailing parent a valid ground for a father to stop maintenance payments?
- Does a temporary refusal to marry by a daughter exonerate the father from his maintenance liability?
- Ghulam Jaafar vs Mst.Zaibun Nisa and 5 others1990 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Yousaf and 2 others1990 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that allowed a constitutional petition arising out of a land settlement case. The core legal question involves examining the effect of the pendency of an earlier writ petition filed by the appellant on subsequent proceedings and ensuring no conflict of judgments arises from parallel litigation over the same subject-matter. The Supreme Court held that to avoid potential conflicting judgments, the matter ought to be heard and disposed of together with the pending earlier writ petition. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the High Court for re-hearing and fresh decision along with the connected pending writ petition. The key principle laid down is that where connected matters involving the same subject-matter are pending across different proceedings, the court must ensure they are heard together to prevent contradictory judicial outcomes.
Questions settled- What is the effect of the pendency of an earlier writ petition on subsequent proceedings relating to the same land settlement dispute?
- Whether a case should be remanded to the High Court to be heard along with a pending connected writ petition to avoid conflict of judgments?
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 577 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from the conviction and seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Sections 459 and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a delayed trial before a Section 30 Magistrate. The appellant contended that his conviction was bad in law due to the non-examination of key official witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and the medical officer, which severely prejudiced his defense. The High Court considered whether the failure to examine the Investigating Officer vitiates a criminal conviction and whether a retrial should be ordered after an extended period. The High Court held that the Investigating Officer is a vital witness whose absence deprives the accused of bringing out crucial material and contradictions, thereby causing grave prejudice. Concluding that the conviction could not be sustained and declining to order a retrial given that the incident occurred eight years prior and the appellant had already served over two years in detention, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to examine the Investigating Officer causes serious prejudice to the accused so as to invalidate a conviction?
- Whether a retrial should be ordered when a conviction is set aside after a lapse of eight years and the accused has already served a substantial portion of his sentence?
- Is a Magistrate required to record reasons when discharging co-accused persons under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State and others1990 MLD 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State1990 PLD Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Bashir and 5 others1990 PLD Lahore 204 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain Arshad And Another vs Allah Ditta And Other1990 CLC 1819 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court initially decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish their status as "owners of the estate." The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs possessed the requisite superior right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, specifically whether their land was assessed to land revenue, and whether the appellate court erred in refusing to admit additional evidence (an inheritance mutation) to prove this assessment. The High Court held that the term "owner of the estate" necessitates the co-existence of ownership of agricultural land and its assessment to land revenue. Since the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of such assessment, they could not satisfy the statutory requirement. Furthermore, the court affirmed that Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked to allow a litigant to fill evidentiary gaps or patch up a weak case due to their own negligence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the term 'owner of the estate' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act require that the land be assessed to land revenue?
- Can a party use Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to introduce additional evidence to fill gaps in their case?
- Does the burden of proof regarding the superior right of pre-emption lie on the plaintiff?
- Are entries in a holding slip (khatauni) sufficient to prove that land is assessed to land revenue?
- Ghulam Hussain and anothers vs Haji Safarash Khan1990 MLD 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain and another vs Province of Punjab and 2 others1990 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioners' civil revision by the High Court. The underlying proceedings originated from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning the allotment of State land on lease with the potential acquisition of proprietary rights. While the trial Court non-suited the petitioners primarily on jurisdiction and other legal grounds, the High Court evaluated the merits and determined that the allotment orders relied upon by the petitioners fell outside the prescribed target date. Upon examination of the disputed allotment orders, the Supreme Court observed that multiple dates appeared on the forms, raising a triable controversy regarding whether the allotment was validly made within the target date. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve this controversy and issued interim directions concerning the deposit of security for mesne profits and the maintenance of possession by the parties.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of State land was made within the prescribed target date?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when conflicting dates on allotment documents raise a triable controversy?
- Ghulam Hussain And Another vs Alam Sher And 3 Other1990 CLC 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider vs The STATEOpponent1990 MLD 1164 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider vs Muhammad Younis1990 CLC 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider Khan vs Muhammad Hayat and 3 others1990 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the lower court convicting the respondent Muhammad Hayat under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the ground of grave and sudden provocation, while acquitting the other co-accused. The petitioner sought either a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or an enhancement of the seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The core legal question was whether the case warranted interference regarding the finding of sudden provocation and the adequacy of the sentence given the mitigating circumstance that the deceased had molested the accused's sister, resulting in pregnancy. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the finding of sudden provocation was well-founded and the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, laying down the principle that appellate interference is unwarranted in culpable homicide convictions where grave and sudden provocation is established.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is justified when the act is committed under grave and sudden provocation?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the presence of strong mitigating circumstances?
- Whether molestation of a family member resulting in pregnancy constitutes grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Ghulam Haider And 19 Others vs Chief Administrator, Auoaf, Punjab1990 CLC 1803 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Siddique vs District Magistrate Thatta at Makli and another1990 MLD 2243 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs The State and another1990 SCMR 1403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court whereby bail granted to him by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code was cancelled. The core legal question involved the propriety of cancelling pre-trial bail in a heinous offence involving a minor. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in cancelling the bail called for no interference, noting the serious nature of the allegations supported by medical evidence showing semen stains on swabs taken from the minor victim. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not interfere with the discretionary cancellation of bail by the High Court in heinous offences where tentative assessment of record prima facie connects the accused with the crime.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's order cancelling bail in a case under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the cancellation of bail by the High Court call for interference when supported by medical evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
- Ghulam Farid vs Ahmed Din1990 CLC 1983 · Board of Revenue · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid Khan vs Muhammad Hanif Khan and others1990 SCMR 763 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a trial court's decree and remanded the suit for a fresh decision. The dispute involved the heirs of a deceased estate owner. During the trial court proceedings, the parties filed a joint application appointing a relative as a 'referee' to make a 'decision' (faisla) regarding the distribution of the entire estate. The referee submitted a written decision, and the trial court immediately passed a decree in accordance with it. The respondents challenged this, arguing that the decision was actually an arbitration award and that they were deprived of the opportunity to file objections. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that a reference to an outside party to decide disputes and apportion an estate is not a reference for information under Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. Because the referee made a judicial determination rather than furnishing information, the decision constituted an arbitration award, which could not be made a rule of court without allowing the parties to file objections.
Questions settled- Whether a reference to a third party to decide a dispute and apportion an estate constitutes a reference for information under Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat?
- Does the use of the word 'referee' in a joint application prevent the court from construing the third party's decision as an arbitration award?
- Can a trial court make a referee's decision that acts as an arbitration award a rule of court without giving the parties an opportunity to file objections?
- Ghulam Din Zia vs Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Lahore And AnotherPTCL 1990 CL. 902 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Din and others vs Saifullah and others1990 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of land measuring 217 Kanals 7 Marlas in village Kasana, Tehsil Shakargarh. The core legal question was whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities acted lawfully in ignoring an earlier proposal of land in favour of the respondents (dated 30-12-1965) to subsequently allot the same land to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest (dated 30-12-1969). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had accepted the respondents' writ petition. The Court held that under Para 68 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, it was mandatory for the authorities to confirm the earlier proposal once made, and the failure to do so while allotting the land to another party was without lawful authority. The Court further refused to entertain a new factual contention regarding the transfer of the respondents' claims to another district, noting that this issue had been factually determined and settled by the Settlement Commissioner previously. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondents' superior entitlement based on the priority of their earlier proposal.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities to confirm a land proposal once it has been made under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Can a party raise a new factual controversy in the Supreme Court that was previously determined and rebutted by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Does an earlier proposal for land allotment confer a superior right over a subsequent allotment made without confirming the prior proposal?
- Ghulam Bahu vs Mst. Maqsood Bibi1990 SCMR 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a revision petition and restored the trial court's order dismissing the petitioner's application for an ad interim injunction in a declaratory suit. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the appellate court's interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion in refusing interim relief, particularly regarding the existence of a prima facie case and irreparable loss, as well as the procedural propriety of admitting affidavits in the appellate court without opportunity for rebuttal. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had properly considered the factual and legal aspects, including the valid appointment of a guardian ad litem, and that the High Court was fully justified in restoring the trial court's order, especially given the improper admission of un-rebutted affidavits by the first appellate court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the appellate court can interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in refusing an ad interim injunction when a prima facie case and irreparable loss are not made out?
- Is it proper for an appellate court to consider affidavits filed on appeal without affording the opposing party an opportunity to rebut them?
- Whether the appointment of a guardian ad litem can be challenged without showing material procedural flaws or prejudice?
- Ghulam Ali vs Messrs Karachi Transport Corporation1990 PLC 387 · Labour Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ali vs Asmat Ullah and another1990 SCMR 1630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave was directed against the High Court's judgment accepting the respondents' First Appeal, setting aside a District Judge's remand order, and restoring the trial court's order rejecting the appellant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The High Court had held that because certain terms regarding monetary adjustments and superstructure value were absent from the written deed of exchange, no oral evidence could be led, thereby concluding that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. based on potential evidentiary limitations or lack of proof. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the remand order, holding that for determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, only the averments made in the plaint itself must be considered, regardless of whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove them.
Questions settled- Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground of anticipated lack or weakness of proof?
- Whether the court must look solely at the assertions made in the plaint to determine if a cause of action is disclosed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.?
- Does the inadmissibility of oral evidence to prove a claim justify the rejection of a plaint for non-disclosure of a cause of action?
- Ghulam Ali and others vs Muhammad Hanif and others1990 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had accepted a writ petition filed by the respondents and restored their land allotments. The original allottees, Malik Muhammad Zaman and Shah Muhammad Khan, had sold their allotted land to respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Upon a mukhbiri application, the Settlement Authorities reduced the allotments as being in excess of entitlements. After protracted litigation involving remands and fresh decisions by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the High Court ultimately set aside the cancellation, holding that the allotments were not in excess of entitlements and that minor irregularities in transferring units between districts were regularisable. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the factual findings and orders of the Settlement Authorities regarding excess allotments. The Supreme Court found prima facie merit in the petitioners' contentions that the allotments were indeed in excess of entitlements, and consequently granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the cancellation of land allotments made by the Settlement Authorities?
- Are irregularities regarding the transfer of units from one district to another capable of being regularised?
- Whether land allotments obtained in excess of entitlements are liable to be reduced by the Settlement Authorities?
- Ghulam Akbar vs The State1990 SCMR 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, Ghulam Akbar, who was charged along with another under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for firing at the injured prosecution witness and causing multiple firearm injuries. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the direct charge in the First Information Report, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the existence of a motive. The Supreme Court held that given the direct attribution, the recovery of the pistol, and the motive to take revenge, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail at this stage. The petition was consequently dismissed, upholding the concurrent refusal of bail by the lower courts.
Questions settled- Is an accused directly charged in the FIR with firearm injuries entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of the weapon of offence from the accused preclude the grant of bail at an early stage?
- Whether the existence of a strong motive affects the consideration for post-arrest bail in a charge under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Ghulam Akbar Khan and Other vs Hajisher Jan and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmed vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 385 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Head Clerk, challenged the termination of his services, which was effected via a letter stating only that his services were "no longer required." The Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the termination. The core legal question was whether the phrase "services no longer required" constitutes a valid, explicit reason for termination under the mandatory requirements of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The High Court held that the termination order was illegal and of no legal effect. The court reasoned that Standing Order 12(3) mandates that an order of termination must explicitly and clearly state the reasons for the action to enable the workman to challenge it effectively. A vague statement like "services no longer required" is merely an expression of employer whim, not a reason, and fails to satisfy the statutory requirement. Consequently, the court declared the termination illegal, ordered reinstatement, but denied back benefits as the petitioner had been gainfully employed elsewhere.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'services no longer required' satisfy the requirement to provide explicit reasons for termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance 1968?
- Is an employer required to disclose the specific reasons for termination in the written order itself, even if those reasons are later established in evidence?
- Can a court deny back benefits to a wrongfully terminated employee who was gainfully employed during the period of their termination?
- Ghulam Ahmad vs Muhammad Sarwar and others1990 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves a dispute over the ownership of property No. 8/586 in Sialkot, which was claimed by the respondent as Muslim-owned property based on a 1944 Civil Court decree. The core legal question was whether the property, having been judicially determined as Muslim-owned and excluded from the Rehabilitation Department's record, could be validly auctioned as evacuee property by the Settlement Authorities. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that because the property was not evacuee property, it was never part of the compensation pool and could not be legally transferred by the Settlement Authorities. The Court held that the auction was void ab initio, and consequently, no valid title could be conveyed to the auction-purchaser or subsequent vendees, regardless of claims of being a bona fide purchaser for value. The key principle laid down is that property judicially determined to be owned by a Muslim prior to partition does not constitute evacuee property, and any subsequent administrative auction of such property is void, rendering derivative titles invalid.
Questions settled- Can property judicially determined to be owned by a Muslim prior to partition be treated as evacuee property?
- Does an auction of non-evacuee property by Settlement Authorities confer valid title upon the purchaser?
- Can a subsequent purchaser claim the status of a bona fide purchaser for value if the underlying auction of the property was void ab initio?
- Ghulam Abbas vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 88 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-26Read full judgment →
- Ghee Corporation of Pakistan and another vs Sh. Abdul Haq and another1990 SCMR 1581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two civil appeals arising from a writ petition and subsequent miscellaneous proceedings concerning a challenge to a judgment written by a High Court judge after he had ceased to hold his office due to elevation to the Supreme Court. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court relates to whether an order passed on a miscellaneous application without notice and hearing to the affected party violates natural justice, and whether the validity of a judgment written post-elevation requires proper examination after hearing all concerned parties. The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the High Court without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant suffered from a procedural defect violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the miscellaneous application for fresh decision after due notice and hearing to all parties concerned, keeping the connected appeal pending.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed on a miscellaneous application without issuing notice and hearing the affected party is sustainable in law?
- Does a judge of a High Court become functus officio to write a judgment upon elevation to a higher court?
- Whether a case should be remanded to the High Court when procedural improprieties and lack of opportunity to present legal submissions are established?
- Ghazi Khan vs The Supdt. of Police, Headquarters. Karachi and AnotherK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 115 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ghazi Khan vs Superintendent of Police and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 469 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ghazanfar Ali and another vs Fida Hussain and 2 others1990 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a civil revision against an ejectment order concerning a shop unit in Abpara Market, Islamabad. The petitioners contended that the ejectment suit was defective due to the non-joinder of necessary parties, specifically alleging that other occupants were not included in the litigation. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the individuals mentioned by the petitioners were not tenants under the agreement with the respondent landlords, nor had they responded to the legal notices issued. The Court held that the respondents, having purchased the property, had fulfilled their obligation by serving notice upon the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court observed that the findings of the three lower courts regarding the factual disputes were concurrent and free from legal infirmity or misappraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that no error of law existed to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead occupants who are not parties to a tenancy agreement constitute a fatal non-joinder of necessary parties in an ejectment suit?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by three lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of legal infirmity or misappraisal of evidence?
- Ghazanfar Ali and another vs Cherat Cement Company and another1990 MLD 1696 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-08Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Fouji Sugar Mills, Khosky, District Badin vs Muzaffar Iqbal and another1990 PLC 641 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Bisvil Spinners Ltd vs Tariq Habib1990 PLC 378 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Gehram and 14 others vs Mst. Allah Jiwai and 72 others1990 SCMR 761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted a civil revision filed by the respondents. The dispute originated from a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of land, wherein the petitioners challenged the validity of three specific land mutations. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the District Court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the petitioners. The High Court subsequently accepted the respondents' revision, primarily addressing the issue of limitation regarding the land, which was part of a joint Khata. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether the sale-deed dated 4-4-1919, relied upon by the petitioners, was a genuine document. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had correctly appraised the evidence, concluding that the sale-deed was of doubtful authenticity. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the High Court's decision to uphold the trial court's findings on the evidentiary issue.
Questions settled- Whether a sale-deed of doubtful authenticity can form the basis for a claim of ownership in a suit for declaration?
- Does the High Court have the authority to re-appraise evidence regarding the genuineness of a document in civil revision proceedings?
- Gauhar Reiiman vs Jan Asiibi and another1990 SCMR 1586 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
- Gauhar Rehman vs Jan Ashbi and another1990 SCMR 1598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of mortgage filed by respondent No. 1, claiming title to the equity of redemption through a gift via Mutation No. 24 attested on 30-11-1962 from the sister of the original owner. The appellant contested the suit, claiming to have purchased the equity of redemption in 1950 via a sale-deed. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of respondent No. 1, which decisions were successively upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The core legal question concerned the validity and proof of the alleged sale-deed relied upon by the appellant, and whether respondent No. 1 had established valid title. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the lack of genuineness and failure of proof of the appellant's sale-deed were unexceptionable, and that respondent No. 1's title stood established. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of title documents and property transactions will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a title document can be interfered with in second appeal?
- Does a plaintiff seeking redemption of mortgage establish a valid title through a duly attested gift mutation of the equity of redemption?
- Whether an unproven sale-deed bearing impossible payment dates and denied by the original owner can confer valid title?
- Gaman vs Muhammad Ramzan1990 CLC 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
- G.M. Malik, Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1990 CLC 1783 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, challenging a show-cause notice issued to him under Section 14(2) of the Boards of Secondary Education Act, 1976, for sanctioning his own casual leave, leaving the headquarters without permission, and authorizing the Secretary of the Board to act in his absence. The core legal questions involved whether the show-cause notice was validly issued under Section 14(2) of the Boards of Secondary Education Act, 1976, regarding officers of the Board, or whether it should have been under Section 12, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a show-cause notice in service matters. The Lahore High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings against officers of the Board were rightly initiated under Section 14(2) of the Boards of Secondary Education Act, 1976, which is distinct from provisions governing ordinary employees. The Court further held that the constitutional petition was premature and not maintainable as the petitioner had adequate remedies before departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether disciplinary proceedings against an officer of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education are properly initiated under Section 14(2) of the Boards of Secondary Education Act, 1976?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a show-cause notice issued in service matters when alternative departmental remedies are available?
- Whether the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is competent to sanction his own casual leave and authorize the Secretary to act in his absence?
- Do the provisions of Section 12 and Section 14 of the Boards of Secondary Education Act, 1976 overlap regarding disciplinary actions against employees and officers?
- G. Padmanabha Chettiar and Sons vs Commissioner of Income Tax1990 PTD 995 · Madras High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- G. M. Malik, Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1990 CLC 773 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge the threatened retirement or removal of the petitioner from the office of the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, before the completion of his statutory three-year tenure. The core legal questions involved whether the tenure of the Chairman of the Board can be curtailed without following the mandatory show-cause procedure under section 14 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, and whether the age of retirement under section 17 of the Act applies to statutory officers like the Chairman. The Lahore High Court held that the Chairman holds a statutory tenure of three years which cannot be reduced except in the manner provided by the proviso to section 14(2) of the Act, and that the retirement provisions in section 17 do not apply to the officers specifically enumerated in section 13 (such as the Chairman). The key principles laid down are that statutory tenures cannot be arbitrarily curtailed in violation of express statutory safeguards, and specific tenure provisions prevail over general retirement age rules pursuant to statutory interpretation principles.
Questions settled- Whether the three-year tenure of the Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education can be reduced without complying with the mandatory requirements of section 14 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976?
- Does the age of retirement laid down in section 17 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976 apply to officers specifically mentioned in section 13 of the said Act?
- Can a civil servant on deputation as Chairman of the Board be prematurely retired from that office upon attaining the age of superannuation under general service rules?
- G. M. Khan vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1990 PLC 272 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
- Fouj Ali and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 995 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar vs Kalu Ram and others1990 MLD 515 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-09-22Read full judgment →
- Firdous Barkat Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 967 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
- Fida Muhammad Khan, J Muhammad Asif vs The State1990 MLD 607 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
- Feroze Ahmad Khan And Others vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1990 CLC 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Establishment Division and 21990 SCMR 1448 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of respondents regarding the non-deduction of Army pensions from their civil post salaries. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Service Tribunal correctly interpreted the relevant laws, rules, and regulations concerning the entitlement of civil servants to receive their full pay in addition to their Army pensions. Upon hearing the arguments from both the petitioners and the respondents, the Supreme Court determined that the issues raised were of significant public importance requiring further judicial examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to address the sustainability of the Tribunal's findings. The principle established is that matters involving the interpretation of service rules regarding the concurrent receipt of pension and salary for civil servants, when contested by the Federation, constitute questions of public importance warranting a full hearing by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does the receipt of an Army pension justify the deduction of that amount from the salary of a civil post?
- Are questions regarding the interpretation of service rules for civil servants considered matters of public importance?
- Federation of Pakistan vs Muhammad Khan And 2 Other1990 CLC 171 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a revision petition challenging the setting aside of a land acquisition award made by a Revenue Assistant acting as Collector Land Acquisition. The core legal question was whether a notification issued by the government under delegated legislative powers, conferring the status of Collector upon a Revenue Assistant, could operate retrospectively to validate an award previously made without jurisdiction. The High Court held that subordinate legislation by a delegated legislative authority cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute expressly provides for it. Since the Land Acquisition Act did not confer power on the government to legislate retrospectively, the government order could only take effect prospectively from the date of its notification. Consequently, the award made by the Revenue Assistant prior to the notification was without lawful authority and a nullity. The key principle laid down is that executive authorities exercising delegated legislative powers cannot give retrospective effect to rules, notifications, or orders unless the enabling statute explicitly authorizes them to do so.
Questions settled- Can a notification issued under delegated legislative powers be given retrospective effect without express authorization in the parent statute?
- Whether an officer not vested with the powers of a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act at the time of making an award can have their authority validated retrospectively by a subsequent government order?
- Does the power of subordinate legislation exercised by the executive include the inherent power to legislate retrospectively?
- How is a photostat copy of a government order required to be proved in evidence under the rules of evidence?
- Federation of Pakistan through the General Manager (Personnel), Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore vs Mrs. Riaz Latif1990 PLD Supreme Court 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a service-related civil suit filed by the respondent against the Federation of Pakistan. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The appellant applied for a certified copy of the judgment on the prescribed form, explicitly requesting delivery via Value Payable Post (V.P.P.) pursuant to the relevant rules. The Copying Agency failed to dispatch the copy by V.P.P., resulting in a delay of nearly four years before the appellant personally collected the copy and filed an appeal alongside an application under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908. Both the first appellate court and the High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that under Rules 13-A.12, 13-A.13, and 13-A.40 of the Copying Agency Manual, an applicant has a right to obtain a certified copy via V.P.P., and the Copying Agency is legally obligated to comply. The Court held that a party cannot be penalized for the non-observance of procedural rules by the Copying Agency.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a Copying Agency to dispatch a certified copy by V.P.P. entitles an applicant to exclude the resulting delay under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a litigant be penalized or deprived of time exclusion due to non-compliance with statutory duties by the Copying Agency?
- Is the Copying Agency legally obligated to send certified copies by V.P.P. when a request is made on the prescribed form under the Copying Agency Manual?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Education and anothers vs Rao Muhammad Yasin Khan and another1990 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan examined whether the Federal Service Tribunal was legally empowered to direct that a civil servant be deemed to have continued in National Pay Scale 19 after his reversion from the Northern Areas with consequential benefits, despite not being regularly promoted. The respondent, an Education Department employee, had his promotion repeatedly and arbitrarily blocked by his department through the withdrawal of his name from the Departmental Promotion Committee, while a junior officer continued to enjoy N.P.S.-19. The Supreme Court held that since the department handled the respondent's case perversely and mala fide, the principle of the next below rule applied. The Court modified the Tribunal's direction, granting the respondent entitlement to N.P.S.-19 pay from the date his junior began enjoying it until his retirement, while otherwise dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is legally empowered to grant a deemed promotion and consequential benefits to a civil servant who was arbitrarily deprived of regular promotion?
- Does the next below rule apply when a civil servant's promotion is withheld perversely and mala fide while a junior officer is allowed to hold the higher grade?
- Can a department arbitrarily withdraw a qualified civil servant's name from the Departmental Promotion Committee without valid reasons?
- Federation of Pakistan through DirectorGeneral, T & T Department, Islamabad and 2 others vs Muhammad Mubarak1990 PLD Supreme Court 346 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a former government servant's claim to count past service for pension purposes following his resignation. The core legal question was whether the respondent, who resigned unconditionally to join a provincial department without obtaining the mandatory prior permission, was entitled to the benefit of Regulation 418(b) of the Civil Service Regulations, and whether his appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 3 of the Government Servants (Application for Services and Posts) Rules, 1966, which requires prior written permission to apply for other posts. By tendering an unconditional resignation based on false representations, the respondent could not later claim the resignation was a mere transfer of service. The Court established that administrative discretion to condone breaks in service cannot be exercised to reward conduct that violates mandatory procedural rules and involves misrepresentation to official superiors. Consequently, the respondent’s claim for pension benefits based on his prior service was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an unconditional resignation tendered without prior permission to join another government department qualify for the protection of Regulation 418(b) of the Civil Service Regulations?
- Is a government servant required to obtain prior written permission under Rule 3 of the Government Servants (Application for Services and Posts) Rules, 1966, before applying for another government post?
- Can a government servant who resigns unconditionally based on false representations later claim that the resignation was intended as a transfer of service for pension purposes?
- Federation of Pakistan Nazir Ahmad Chaudhry vs Nazir Ahmad Chaudhry Pakistan through Establishment Secretary1990 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from cross-appeals filed by the Government and a retired Additional Secretary (Grade 21) against a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the denial of official amenities including a residential telephone, a household orderly, and a staff car during his tenure as an Officer on Special Duty. The core legal questions pertained to whether a civil servant is entitled as of right to the provision of a household orderly and the free use of a staff car (or POL costs in lieu thereof) when posted as an Officer on Special Duty. The Supreme Court held that the provision of a household orderly is contingent upon the availability of a peon within the sanctioned strength of the division, and that the rule permitting the free use of a staff car by entitled officers does not impose a mandatory obligation on the department to procure or provide an additional vehicle unless one is already available, failing which the officer is only entitled to a car maintenance allowance. The Court established the principle that welfare facilities tied to availability or administrative discretion do not create an absolute financial liability on the State without proof of actual availability.
Questions settled- Whether an entitled officer can claim the cost of POL instead of a staff car when no spare vehicle is available in the division?
- Is the provision of a household orderly to a Grade 20 and above officer absolute or dependent upon the sanctioned strength of peons in the department?
- Does the rule permitting free use of staff cars for entitled officers impose a mandatory duty on the Government to procure additional vehicles?
- Federation of Pakistan and others vs Mumtaz Ali Khan1990 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan challenging a decision of the Service Tribunal. The core legal question is whether a civil servant possessing only 'average' performance reports can be declared fit for promotion or entitled to 'move-over' to a higher scale simply because a Reporting or Countersigning Officer remarked that the individual is fit for promotion on their turn. The petitioner contends that actual promotion or move-over is contingent upon a broader assessment by the Departmental Promotion Committee or Selection Board, guided by the government's Promotion Policy and specific 'Guidelines for submitting move-over cases' which require 'generally good' confidential reports for move-over to scales 19 and 20. The Supreme Court found that the question raised requires further consideration and granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned order of the Service Tribunal pending the final adjudication of the matter.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant with only average performance reports be declared fit for promotion based solely on a remark by a Reporting or Countersigning Officer?
- Is a civil servant entitled to 'move-over' to higher scales if their confidential reports are not 'generally good'?
- Federation of Pakistan and anothers vs C. M. Sharif1990 SCMR 250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the service grade of a civil servant, C.M. Sharif, who was a permanent employee of the Pakistan Ordnance Factory (P.O.F.) in Grade 19. In 1974, the respondent was deputed as Managing Director of Wah Industries Limited (W.I.L.), a subsidiary. Subsequently, the P.O.F. Board granted him pay in Grade 20. Upon his recall to the parent department, the respondent was reverted to Grade 19, prompting him to seek relief before the Service Tribunal, which ruled in his favor. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the respondent could claim Grade 20 as a matter of right based on his tenure at W.I.L. The Court held that because the P.O.F. Board's order granting Grade 20 did not provide for a deputation allowance, it constituted a promotion rather than a mere pay adjustment. Consequently, having promoted the respondent to Grade 20, the department could not unilaterally demote him upon his return. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the respondent's demotion was unjustified.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim a higher grade as a matter of right after being recalled from a deputation where they were granted that higher grade?
- Does the grant of a higher pay scale without a deputation allowance constitute a promotion in service?
- Can a parent department unilaterally demote a civil servant who was previously promoted to a higher grade while on deputation?
- Federation of Pakistan and another vs N.W.F.P. Government and others1990 PLD Supreme Court 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition regarding the enforcement of Islamic laws of Qisas and Diyat. Following a statement by the Attorney-General, the Supreme Court addressed the timeline for the promulgation and implementation of the Ordinance relating to Qisas and Diyat. The Court held that the Ordinance must be promulgated by 5th September 1990 and fully enforced by 12th Rabi-ul-Awwal 1411 A.H. The Court further ordered that the previous decision declaring certain existing provisions repugnant to the injunctions of Islam would take effect on 12th Rabi-ul-Awwal 1411 A.H., at which point those repugnant provisions shall cease to have effect. Crucially, the Court established that if the new law is not enacted or lapses, a legal vacuum shall not exist; instead, the common Islamic law and injunctions of Islam regarding Qatl and Jurh (hurt) as contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah shall immediately become the applicable law, with the Pakistan Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code applied mutatis mutandis to facilitate the administration of justice.
Questions settled- What is the legal consequence if the Ordinance for Qisas and Diyat is not enacted or lapses by the specified deadline?
- Can the common Islamic law/injunctions of Islam be applied directly in the absence of statutory law regarding Qatl and Jurh?
- Does the Pakistan Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code remain applicable in the event of a statutory vacuum regarding Qisas and Diyat?
- Can the Court extend the effective date of a declaration of repugnancy to allow for the implementation of new legislation?
- Federal Land Commission through its Senior Member, Islamabad vs Sher1990 PLD Supreme Court 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federal Land Commission sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court which had accepted several constitutional petitions filed by the respondents. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government, under the guise of exercising powers conferred by Section 25 of the Land Reforms Act 1977, could issue a notification directing that all pending cases before the Commission would not stand abated, effectively nullifying the main statutory provision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the legislative intent of Section 25 was to mandate the abatement of all pending proceedings before the Federal Land Commission, subject only to specific exceptions where the Federal Government actively applied its mind to keep individual cases or specific classes of cases alive. The Court ruled that the impugned notification, which sought to save all pending cases from abatement, was ultra vires the powers of the Federal Government as it sought to nullify the statutory provision itself. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Government issue a notification under Section 25 of the Land Reforms Act 1977 that completely nullifies the statutory rule of abatement for all pending cases?
- What is the scope of the Federal Government's power to direct that a case or class of cases shall not stand abated under Section 25 of the Land Reforms Act 1977?
- Whether a notification that saves all pending proceedings from statutory abatement is ultra vires the parent statute if the statute itself mandates general abatement.
- Federal Government of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad vs M. D. Tahir, Advocate and others1990 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an appeal by the Federal Government against an order of the Lahore High Court concerning constitutional questions regarding the appointment of High Court judges. During the proceedings, the Deputy Attorney-General stated that the Federal Government would be satisfied if a specific paragraph (paragraph 5) of the impugned order dealing with the interpretation of Article 193 and Article 48(1) of the Constitution in relation to the Prime Minister's role was excised, noting that notice under Order 27-A, Rule 1 was not given to the Attorney-General. Counsel for respondent No. 2 consented to this approach, while respondent No. 1's objection was overruled as he had not filed an appeal. Although some judges noted the importance of settling constitutional controversies of fundamental public importance, the majority agreed to dispose of the appeal by excising the offending portion of the judgment. The court held that the specified paragraph of the High Court's judgment should be excised while the judgment stood in all other respects.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal can be disposed of by consensus of the appearing parties when constitutional questions of public importance are raised?
- Does the failure to issue notice to the Attorney-General under Order 27-A Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure affect the validity of a determination on a constitutional question?
- Federal Government Of Pakistan And Other vs Muhammad SarwarPTCL 1990 CL. 139 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the interpretation and interplay between customs adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution for the same set of facts under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question concerned whether an adjudication order of the customs authorities is subject to the decision of a Special Judge in criminal proceedings, particularly in light of the now-repealed section 179-A of the Customs Act, 1969, and the savings provision under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court held that where a person is prosecuted and acquitted by a Special Judge, and appeals against such acquittal are subsequently withdrawn, the acquittal attains finality, vesting a right in the accused under section 6 of the General Clauses Act to have the adjudication order made subject to or in conformity with the acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that declared the conflicting customs confiscation and penalty orders void and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether an adjudication order made under the Customs Act, 1969 is subject to the decision of a Special Judge in criminal proceedings under section 179-A?
- Does the repeal of section 179-A of the Customs Act, 1969 extinguish the vested right of an accused to claim the benefit of an acquittal in adjudication proceedings pursuant to section 6 of the General Clauses Act?
- What is the legal effect of the withdrawal of an appeal against an acquittal on the finality of the acquittal and its binding nature on concurrent customs adjudication orders?
- Fazalurrehman Qureshi vs The Deputy Director, Food, Lahore and another1990 SCMR 1476 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment dated January 14, 1985, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against his compulsory retirement under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 was dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the time-barred appeal due to the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay in invoking its appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the order of the Tribunal calls for no interference as the delay remained unexplained. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for delay warrants the dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds without interfering with the tribunal's discretion.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal can be dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation when no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the Service Tribunal regarding the condonation of delay under proper legal principles?
- Fazal Rehman vs The Principal, Government High School No. 2, D.I. Khan1990 PLC (C.S.) 717 · Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Fazal Qadeem vs The State1990 MLD 1199 · Federal Shariat Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad vs Muhammad Jafar And 6 Other1990 CLC 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad and others vs Fazal Elahi and others1990 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition in a settlement case concerning land confirmation and subsequent auction. The core legal question is whether petitioners who purchased land from an auction-purchaser whose own auction was never confirmed and was subject to pending litigation can claim protection as bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The Supreme Court held that the auction-purchaser had no valid right or title to transfer the property because the auction was not confirmed and the property was subject to a High Court challenge decided in favour of the respondent. Consequently, the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners had no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that a purchaser from an auction-purchaser whose auction has not attained finality or has been nullified by judicial proceedings acquires no legal title, and the doctrine of bona fide purchase cannot protect a title derived from a non-owner or a person with a defeasible and extinguished interest.
Questions settled- Whether a purchaser from an auction-purchaser whose auction was never confirmed can claim protection as a bona fide purchaser?
- Does an auction-purchaser acquire transferable title to property when the auction confirmation is stopped and subsequently set aside by the court?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against a detailed High Court judgment properly resolving settlement land claims?
- Fazal Muhammad alias Fazla vs Ghulam Ali and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 201 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court due to the appellant's failure to perform necessary Talabs (demands). The appellant filed a second appeal, which was time-barred, and sought condonation of delay. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned given the fluctuating state of the law regarding the necessity of Talabs in pre-emption suits. The Court held that the delay should be condoned. It observed that the law of pre-emption had been in a state of flux following conflicting judicial pronouncements, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmad v. Abdul Aziz, which clarified that Talabs were not required. The Court established the principle that where an appellant is genuinely misled by conflicting judicial precedents and a fluid state of law, such circumstances constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the relevant limitation provisions. Consequently, the Court admitted the appeal for further hearing on the merits regarding the sustainability of the lower courts' judgments.
Questions settled- Can delay in filing an appeal be condoned where the appellant was misled by conflicting judicial precedents?
- Does the fluid state of law regarding pre-emption requirements constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
- Is the performance of Talabs a mandatory requirement for a pre-emption suit in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Ahmad v. Abdul Aziz?
- Fazal Hussain And 3 Others vs Nawab Din1990 CLC 1446 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
- Fazal Dad vs Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and 3 others1990 SCMR 1663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerned the validity of the transfer of an evacuee property portion occupied by a Jammu and Kashmir refugee. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Authorities had jurisdiction to transfer property in the possession of such a refugee, given the statutory protection afforded to them, and whether the respondent was barred by laches for failing to challenge the transfer earlier. The Supreme Court held that the transfer was void ab initio as the property was immune from transfer to non-refugees under Section 30(5) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and subsequently under Paragraph 19 of Settlement Scheme No. IV. The Court ruled that the Settlement Authorities lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the property in the respondent's possession. Furthermore, the plea of laches was rejected because the respondent was never informed of the rejection of his claim, nor was he heard during the initial determination. The principle established is that statutory protections for Jammu and Kashmir refugees regarding property possession are mandatory, and transfers in violation thereof are without jurisdiction and not subject to the doctrine of laches when the aggrieved party was kept in ignorance of the adverse order.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of laches apply to a party who was never informed of the adverse order passed against them?
- Can Settlement Authorities transfer property in the possession of a Jammu and Kashmir refugee to a non-refugee?
- Is a transfer of evacuee property made in violation of statutory protections regarding Jammu and Kashmir refugees void for lack of jurisdiction?
- Fayyaz Shah vs Bisvil Spinners Ltd.1990 PLC 384 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Hassan vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1990 SCMR 1546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a senior clerk, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner's prolonged absence from duty and failure to appear before the Medical Superintendent constituted wilful absence and gross indiscipline warranting removal from service. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was guilty of wilful default and absence from duty without leave of the competent authority, and that the Service Tribunal's findings were fully justified. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized and prolonged absence from duty coupled with failure to substantiate medical grounds when directed constitutes gross indiscipline, justifying dismissal from service, and such concurrent findings of the Service Tribunal do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether prolonged absence from duty without sanctioned leave constitutes gross indiscipline?
- Does failure to appear before a medical board when directed justify the rejection of medical leave applications?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with factual findings of the Service Tribunal regarding wilful absence from duty?
- Fatz Ahmad vs The State1990 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner challenged the maintenance of his life imprisonment sentence by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the reliability of eye-witness testimony and the sufficiency of evidence were sustainable. The prosecution's case relied on the oral testimony of two related eye-witnesses, medical evidence, and a motive of revenge for a murder committed twenty-five years prior. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was well-founded, noting that the lower courts had correctly evaluated the evidence. The Court affirmed that the eye-witnesses were natural witnesses residing in the locality, their testimony was intrinsically true and reliable, and their account was corroborated by medical evidence showing injuries inflicted with vengeance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence, and establishing that concurrent findings based on credible, corroborated testimony regarding the nature of injuries and witness veracity do not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Are concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the reliability of eye-witness testimony subject to interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the testimony of related witnesses, when found intrinsically true and corroborated by medical evidence, sustain a conviction?
- Is a motive of revenge sufficient to support a conviction when corroborated by other evidence?
- Fateh Muhammad vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under sections 468, 471, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of forgery regarding a gift deed of agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the alleged forgery constituted an offence under section 463 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 despite the complainant's lack of direct interest in the property, and whether the existence of concurrent civil proceedings rendered the criminal case an abuse of the process of law. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the allegations of forgery were prima facie substantiated by the evidence, including the fabrication of a death certificate by the accused. The Court affirmed that any citizen may report a cognizable offence regardless of personal interest. Furthermore, it held that criminal proceedings are not barred merely by the pendency of civil litigation, especially when the alleged forgery occurred outside of court proceedings, rendering section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inapplicable. The petition was dismissed as the investigation had established a prima facie case.
Questions settled- Can a person who is not a direct beneficiary or heir report a cognizable offence?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit automatically render criminal proceedings for forgery an abuse of the process of law?
- Does the definition of forgery under section 463 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the complainant to have a direct interest in the property?
- Is section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to offences not committed in relation to court proceedings?
- Fateh Muhammad vs Riaz Ahmad alias Raju and another1990 P Cr. L J 454 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Muhammad Hanif and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 82 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal arises from an order of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's application for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property pendente lite in a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, whether time was of the essence of the contract, and whether the grant of such an injunction in a specific performance suit should be made subject to terms, specifically the deposit of the balance sale consideration. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiff established a good prima facie case with a balance of convenience in his favour, and that time was yet to be determined as of the essence at trial. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's order, granting the temporary injunction subject to the condition that the plaintiff deposits the balance sale consideration in court within two months to secure the defendants' interests against fluctuating real estate values and demonstrate bona fides.
Questions settled- Whether time was of the essence of the contract in a suit for specific performance where the stipulated completion date had expired?
- Can a temporary injunction restraining the alienation of property be granted in a suit for specific performance?
- Whether the grant of an interim injunction in a suit for specific performance should ordinarily be subjected to the condition of depositing the balance sale consideration in court?
- Does the failure to serve a pre-institution notice under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 warrant the dismissal of an appeal once it has been admitted for a hearing on merits?
- Fateh Muhammad vs Abdul Fateh and another1990 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had originally been convicted by the trial court for the murder of the petitioner's son, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment. The High Court, however, overturned this conviction, citing the triviality and lack of proof regarding the alleged motive, the interested nature of the eyewitnesses, and the unreliability of the recovery evidence, specifically the firearm. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's appraisal of the evidence and its decision to grant the benefit of doubt to the respondent warranted appellate interference. Upon reviewing the record and the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly appraised the evidence and reached a sound conclusion. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the acquittal, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not disturb an acquittal based on a proper evaluation of evidence and the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with an acquittal where the High Court has properly appraised the evidence and granted the benefit of doubt?
- Can an appellate court discard ocular testimony if the witnesses are found to be interested and the motive is unproven?
- Fateh Muhammad and others vs Rullia and others1990 SCMR 1157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the validity of land transactions and subsequent revenue mutations. The petitioner, having sold land to the respondents via a registered sale deed, later attempted to gift the same land to his sons, leading to conflicting revenue mutations. The core legal question was whether a Revenue Officer possesses the jurisdiction to review an order that has already been confirmed in appeal, and whether a vendor can validly gift property already alienated for consideration. The Supreme Court held that the Revenue Authorities lacked jurisdiction to review an order once it had been confirmed in appeal, citing Section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a vendor cannot legally gift property that has already been transferred to another party for valuable consideration. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the previous litigation between the parties had attained finality and that the review proceedings were legally incompetent.
Questions settled- Can a Revenue Officer review an order that has already been confirmed in appeal?
- Does a vendor have the legal capacity to gift land that has already been sold to another party for valuable consideration?
- Does an order passed by a Revenue Officer become immune to review once it has been subjected to appellate scrutiny?
- Fateh Muhammad And Others vs Aisha Bibi And Other1990 CLC 1996 · Board of Revenue · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 921 · Federal Shariat Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan And Others vs Rab Nawaz Khan And Other1990 CLC 257 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
- Faryad Hussain Bokhari vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 201 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
- Farooq Hussain vs Zahid Hussain and others1990 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court altering the respondent's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to one under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reducing his sentence from death to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The respondent was originally tried for causing the death of the deceased by firing a gun during an altercation, where the bullet missed the intended target, the petitioner, and struck the deceased instead. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the High Court erred in holding that the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder, given that the respondent fired with the intention to kill the petitioner but inadvertently killed the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised regarding the legal effect of the transfer of intent warrants detailed consideration. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter, while directing that the respondent shall not be released during the pendency of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a gunshot killing an unintended bystander instead of the intended target constitute murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of motive against the deceased?
- What is the legal effect of transferred intent on criminal culpability when a firearm discharge misses its target and results in a fatality?
- Farooq A. Ghaffar and 3 others vs Muhammad Amin Sultani and another1990 P Cr. L J 984 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-06Read full judgment →
- Farman Ilahi vs Government of NWFP and 2 OtherK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service 224 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- Farman Alt and 4 others vs The State1990 MLD 2387 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-17Read full judgment →